The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for timely application for compassionate appointment and financial assistance, as well as the applicability of the rules prevalent on the date of the employee's death.

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment as an Assistant Lines Man or a similar post, on account of the death of his father on 01.02.2002, while serving as an Assistant Lines Man.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a minor at that stage, could not have applied for the post and therefore applied for the post in the year 2004, upon which a letter was written to him by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation on 18.10.2004 (Annexure P-1), informing him that “the facility of employment on compassionate grounds is being provided in order of seniority and as on date, we have given appointment under Class-IV category upto 1.5.1999. Your case relates to the period 1.2.02, and will therefore be decided on its turn in accordance with the seniority.”

3. Thereafter, the Managing Director again informed him vide a letter dated 22.12.2005, Annexure P-2, that in terms of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules 2003, his case for employment was to be finalized within a period of 3 years, either from the date of issuance of the rules, or within 3 years from the date of death of the employee, failing which he would be entitled to financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lacs.

4. Three years from the date of notification of the rules undoubtedly ran out on 2006 and the petitioners' father already having died on 01.02.2002, obviously a period of 3 years had already elapsed about more than 10 months earlier to the issuance of the letter dated 22.12.2005.

5. Be that as it may, the petitioner still did not approach this Court, at that time, seeking that he be given compassionate appointment not as per the rules notified in the year 2003, but as per the policy prevalent in the year 2002, i.e. when his father died.

6. Thereafter, on 12.04.2006, the Managing Director again wrote to the petitioner vide Annexure P-3, that since his case for compassionate appointment had not come up within the 5% quota of sanctioned posts laid down the Rules of 2003, he could opt for financial assistance instead of compassionate appointment, within a period of one month of the expiry of validity of the seniority list, which was valid upto 31.03.2006, as per Rule 6.1(c) of the aforesaid Rules, 2003.

7. Thereafter, again on 15.03.2007, vide Annexure P-4, effectively the same option was given to him.

8. Yet again, vide the impugned letter dated 12.04.2012, Annexure P-5, he was told that he could at best get financial assistance of Rs.2.5 lacs.

9. Thereafter, the present petition has come to be filed on 17.03.2015, seeking compassionate appointment as aforesaid, on account of death of the petitioners' father in the year 2002.

10. Upon query as to how the claim can be entertained after such a belated period of 15 years from the death of petitioners' father, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been constantly agitating the matter before the respondent-authority and they have also been replying to him right since the year 2004, till the year 2012.

11. Further, he relies upon a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Krishna Kumari vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 20.04.2012, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-6 with the petition. Specifically, learned counsel has pointed to the following part of the judgment:-

“In view of this clear enunciation of law we cannot but come to the conclusion that rules applicable on the date of death/incapacitation of an employee need to be followed. Needless to observe it is upto the authority to consider the application without inordinate delay and take a decision thereon. In the eventuality application remains pending for considerable period and some other policy comes into operation, no fault can be found on part of the employee. This appears to be the principle recognized by the apex court in its recent judgment in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar's case. As held therein, applicatio